June 16, 2007

The too-little-too-late resignation of Michael B. Nifong, the Durham County district attorney, announced Friday who brought sexual assault charges against three Duke University lacrosse players.

“It has become increasingly apparent, during the course of this week, in some ways that it might not have been before, that my presence as the district attorney in Durham is not furthering the cause of justice,” Mr. Nifong said.

It's not perfect justice, but it's more than a start.In the Durham, North Carolina drama, a Prosecutor, Michael Nifong, valued black votes more than the administration of justice, and was found out.In a separate action Nifong may serve time in jail for Criminal Contempt. In the penalty phase of this current proceeding, he should be disbarred.Crystal Gail Mangum,the "stripper" who falsely claimed that she was attacked, will not be prosecuted for anything, and will not even have her name appear in the New York Times.The three wrongly accused former Duke students will be identified again and again, even though the chief legal officer of the State of North Carolina, Roy Cooper, has declared that they are "innocent".

As for Duke University;The Duke University Faculty "Gang of 88", who bought an inflammatory advertisement aimed at those falsely accused, have removed a copy of the ad from the Duke African-American Studies web site, but have neither recanted nor resigned. The only person fired at Duke was the former Lacrosse Coach, who, one year later, received an undisclosed "financial settlement" from the University.The heroes early in this drama have been the defense attorneys, the bloggers, the Lacrosse Players and their parents, and a few of the news professionals. Later they included Ed Bradley of 60 Minutes, Attorney General Roy Cooper, and now the North Carolina Bar and Judges who are trying to mete out some justice.

For those not living in the Raleigh-Durham area, here's a sampling of local left-of-center commentary on the case. The quotes below come from a 2006 cover story in the local "alternative" newspaper, The Spectator:

"Compassion begins with the woman who says she was raped. The shock-and-awe media campaign against her credibility, like those attacks on the district attorney for election-year grandstanding, is the handiwork of defense attorneys on fat retainers. (As were those pro-Duke columns by David Brooks and his Times colleague Nicholas Kristof, which recycled stale spin the defense ladled up two months ago.) They're just doing their job, which isn't always a pretty one. If you feel a compulsion to believe them, you're the one who might catch a glimpse of your inner racist in the mirror."

And best of all:

"If the party boys are found guilty, it's a permanent black eye, a setback no NCAA trophies can erase; if they go free--even without a shadow of doubt on their innocence--Duke's conspicuous presence as the rich white school in the poor black town is infinitely more precarious."

So, if them white boys is innocent, they's still guilty, "infinitely more" guilty....

So often, it appears that justice isn't served, so I am somewhat heartened that it may be in this case.

But the problem is that justice is only being served because the families of the accused LAX players had the financial ability to hire very good attorneys who were able to keep after the DA until his corrupt actions were too obvious to ignore. Most people who face such situations don't have that ability.

The Duke University Faculty "Gang of 88", who bought an inflammatory advertisement aimed at those falsely accused, have removed a copy of the ad from the Duke African-American Studies web site, but have neither recanted nor resigned.

Ann, I'm curious how your fellow professors feel about this. It looks like the Duke faculty will get away with bearing false witness without apology, and it diminishes the power of any future statements by other faculty.

Shouldn't their peers exact some price from this? At least ostracism, ridicule, etc? Maybe I'm being unrealistic and expecting too much but: do you feel that faculty around the country have any obligation to act on the Duke faculty in a way that would discourage something like this from happening again?

I just think their should be some consquence for invoking authority so irresponsibly. Can the students sue the faculty for some form of defamation? If I took out an ad to accuse the faculy of Duke of child molestation, wouldn't I be in deep legal trouble?

"Ann, I'm curious how your fellow professors feel about this. It looks like the Duke faculty will get away with bearing false witness without apology, and it diminishes the power of any future statements by other faculty"

I'm curious about that too. Why don't other professors attack their bigotry and stupidity?

I am pretty much an althousian fanboy, but either you aren't following this case or you are on the wrong side on this one.

The NYT and Duff Wilson in particular, are very much the part of the problem on this case. They were Nifong enablers from the beginning and a major source and pipeline for his lies to the media. Any use of them in this case demonstrates that you are clueless on the topic. Duffy lied in the NYT when he stated that he had read the "case file" and then proceeded to lay out a series of lies that supported Nifong's world view.

Glued to the WRAL feed of the hearing this week, I thought one of the best bits was when Defense Atty Bannon testified to Nifong giving knowingly false info to the media who then uncritically reproduced it. He used Duff Wilson as the primary example of a reporter who ignored evidence contrary to the meta-narrative.

This string precedes the revelation that Nifong covered up the presence of 4-5 other male DNA samples and No LAX DNA in a woman that alleged that she had not had other sexual encounters in the week previous and that the 3 attackers had ejaculated in all of her orifices.

It just got worse later.The NYT's gets very very close to the Malice standard for libel in these articles. I think they crossed over with reckless disregard for the truth.

I found it difficult to watch the Ethics Panel proceedings this afternoon. I actually felt sorry for Nifong. Not that he doesn't deserve this and more. In the interest of justice, I hope that criminal charges are brought. The role of prosecuter is so important, their power so terrible, that an abuse of this magnitude has to be punished by the criminal system.

Nifong's actions were so egregious, his abuse of power so obvious, that people's opinions on the outcome of this case will be a useful litmus test for people's integrity. I would say that I look forward to reading the NYT take on this tomorrow but, sadly, I'm already pretty sure what it will be.

Honestly, I do not know that they are innocent. But it is painfully obvious that Nifong never had a case. Proving their innocence would be very difficult, but since this is still America, the presumption of their innocence should prevail.

So it is quite un-American for the 88 to do what they did. But sadly, they are likely proud of that aspect of their treachery to their students, their school, and their country.

1. the alleged victim was a psychotic drug using whore. 2. her story changed 10+ times, every time she told it3. she was directly contradicted by her black driver and the other stripper4. there are cell phone records, ATM photos, digital photos and 20+ witnesses that all say she was lying5. she claimed to have had sex with nobody in the past week, except for the 3 attackers who ejaculated in all of her orifices. 2 separate labs found no DNA from the 3 alleged attackers, but did find DNA from 4-5 men whose DNA should not have bee there if either she was telling the truth about her sex life or made a good ID of the attackers.6. The alleged victim's story was not questioned by the police for 9 months, even as the evidence piled up that it as all a lie.7. The nurse whom the police spoke to, did not do the examination, because she was not qualified. The police NEVER spoke to the doctor that did the examination and signed the statement. The doctor saw NO evidence of rape8. The alleged victim had previously claimed gang rape and withdrawn the charges9. There was NO evidence from anywhere that any crime had been committed10. The alleged victim failed to id the 3 accused in 2 previous attempts, on a 3rd attempt, with only LAX players in the lineup which violated all procedures, she was luke warm about an ID.11. the State AG did an independent investigation and his staff were the first people to critically question the alleged victim. They found her completely useless and he declared the innocence of the 3 accused after 12 months and them spending more than $1 million dollars to defend themselves against completely bogus charges.

The Gang of 87 (one retracted) are predominantly class/race/gender studies professors. All decent people ridicule, abhor, and hold in contempt ANYONE in those specialties, so it's hard to go to 11 on that. It's like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton: they're pompous fools who have no credibility with any decent person, so no matter what horrible thing they do next (philandering, corruption, tax-evasion, Tawana Brawley, Freddie's Fashion Mart...) they suffer no penalty since they are already scum. Their supporters are unalienable, so what do they care?

What this does show is that the entire system of liberal arts academia needs to be dismantled. Since there is no objective truth, there can be no fair evaluation or method of instruction. Until the critical theorists have been fully dismissed and the Boomers removed for the genrational pollution that they are, there can be no true learning.

Math, (hard) science, and engineering have actually true answers. 2 + 2 = 4 and so on. No discipline can be taught where the dominant professors deny that there is any objective truth. Liberal arts need to be studied only in one's own time, while universities and colleges only pursue ACTUAL knowledge rather than their current pursuit of intellectual onanism.

I'm close to a family who's "been there" with an athlete son. The accuser was believed by the police despite facts presenting compelling contradictions. The family borrowed the money and paid over $20K to investigators who found the smoking gun even the cops couldn't ignore. It still hurts the son and his family, though it occurred in 1985.

I'd think that if the athletes sued for defamation they'd pretty much have a slam-dunk case...but the problem is that they'd either be suing the state (which has the resources to drag the case through as many appeals as it likes) or their own college (which would put them in the "bad guy" corner.)

"The Gang of 87 (one retracted) are predominantly class/race/gender studies professors. All decent people ridicule, abhor, and hold in contempt ANYONE in those specialties"

Far from being held in contempt, critical race/class/gender theory is the official orthodoxy in academia. Anyone openly expressing dissent from approved dogma will be whisked before a committee, at the very least. At worst, consider the fate of Larry Sanders.

Even the NYT at last feels compelled to include the words "false accusations" and "innocent defendants" in its Nifong coverage. No such acknowledgement of factual reality will ever be made by the Group of 88.

Not only a good legal case, but a cautionary one about how the Left, black racists, wealthy progressive Jews, and feminazis now feels emboldened enough to set up a Prosecutor on a PC righteousnees white steed to criminalize "white male privilege".

It is so bad that beyond firing people for political beliefs, giving "correct" lawbreakers sanctuary, the sense of power is so great that they wish to seriously go after "Opressor Groups" with prosecution.

As one black racist and the Student Senate leader of largely black NCCU, Chan Hall put it, "Whether they raped the girl or not is irrelevant. Justice for past crimes done to women, blacks, gays, and other dispossed people of the Earth is not. It is not about justice for the individual, it is about collective justice for collective crimes like that done to our sister"

The quicker-thinking of the PC factions quickly saw error and slithered off, leaving the less intelligent feminazis, arrogant aristocrats up in their campus castles, and the numbnuts Orcs of slumville hanging on ---as pikemen skewered their white knight on a steed...Nifonged!Orcs so stupid they voted for the guy even after knowing of solid alibis, no DNA, that their Victimized Virginal "honor student" was nothing but a c*m-drenched whore

More attacks on race, gender, privilege lie ahead. All the PC forces believe now is that Nifong was an inept Knight to wage real class warfare...

Oh, and our good pal Duff had a front page story last August (sorry link doesn't work) that led with Sgt. Gottlieb's interview with the SANE nurse, describing how beat up the alleged victim was. If the nurse was truthful in her sworn testimony this week, she never talked to Gottlieb.

"Math, (hard) science, and engineering have actually true answers. 2 + 2 = 4 and so on. No discipline can be taught where the dominant professors deny that there is any objective truth. Liberal arts need to be studied only in one's own time, while universities and colleges only pursue ACTUAL knowledge rather than their current pursuit of intellectual onanism."

Spoken like a stupid person who never studied anything, "soft" or "hard" very well. So what happens to the law schools? Does theoretical physics get the chop in your little vocationalization project? Hell, even medicine seems a little unscientific when you think about it.

Hey Sarge, you state the facts in the case well, and I did not know about #8. But it is so hard to prove a negative! I meant no disrespect to the players or their families, but I was not there, and crazy people get raped too.

So perhaps I should have typed something like it is very difficult to believe her accusations, which would not have given the wrong message. I just meant that I personally do not know that they were inoccent.

There is no reason that I see from this whole mess to charge them either. Thanks for taking the time for putting all the info in one place in such a succinct manner though.

For the pot bangers, the gang of 88, some journalists, & certain sanctimonious types (“my kids were never/would never be at such a party; these kids put themselves in harm’s way & shouldn’t have been surprised when they got harmed)”, it isn't just that you got the facts absolutely wrong, it’s the absolute moral certainty with which you presented your conclusion. Oh, wait, the facts are still not clear to some like TMink who missed the declaration of innocence & to those who still say “something bad happened there”.

As for academia, as someone once wrote

This was decreed by superior powersIn a moment of wisdom siderealThat those who dwell upon ivory towersShall have heads of the same material.

Funny, but sex & feminism are supposed to go together like high temperatures in August & Global Warming theorists, & the two are especially supposed to mesh on college campuses. (Of course, there is the “all sex is rape” über extremist faction of the feminists, who get airtime or press time when some “victim” with “buyer’s remorse” has been brainwashed into publicly proclaiming that her one-night stand was, now that she’d had time to recover, actually non consensual. Let me be clear: I’m saying that “not all sex is rape”, not that “no sex is rape”.)

Now, a conflict has arisen between the post ‘60’s (a) believers in anything goes sex-wise on most campuses and (b) PC faculties & administrators who, believing that the Official Preppy Handbook is the alpha & the omega of intellectual analysis of white dominance, have decreed that preppy white males must be punished for doing male sex things.

I’d never dreamed that either the officially-sanctioned anything goes sex-wise & the feminism/racism über alles would go away in my lifetime, but suddenly it appears that both can’t go on together without some change. Here, the punishments were draconian, all as a result of a typical college kid strip show, with an alleged rape perpetrated by allegedly privileged, preppy white “men” (few much beyond their 21st birthday) against a poor Black college “girl” (28) just trying to make money for her daily bread & that of her kids (a/k/a, prostitution). (What, few members of the Lacrosse team were children of coupon clippers? Nevermind! What, Black basketball & football players routinely have such strip shows & force themselves on black females? Nevermind! What, girls watch male strippers? Nevermind! What, college girls willingly pose for Girls Gone Wild? Nevermind! What the girl was a professional with the DNA of several guys, none of them members of the Lacrosse team? Nevermind!)

Now, what KCJ has called “Durham In Wonderland” has unraveled after it turned out to have been based on a Barney-Fyfe like investigation & wild counter-factual, selectively-indignant accusations of witch hunters who thought they had the perfect PC storm. Perhaps college administrators will have to stop completely ignoring Animal House behavior on the part of all students, preppy & non preppy, white & non white, male & female, & perhaps parents of white male students will have to stop abjectly putting up with the absolute power held by the selective-indignant crazed feminists & their wimpy male supporters. Ya think? Nah.

No, I’m not a dreamer about my position. I don’t believe that white males will never rape women, anymore than I believe that no football player will ever grab a face mask or no basketball player will ever foul his opponents. And I really do believe that all the above should be justly punished. I simply posit that academia acknowledge that, like athletic misconduct, sexual conduct which is declared wrong for white male elite athletes must, in fairness, nay, by parity of logic, be declared equally wrong for all students, including black males & women, & all fratboys & fratgirls. And that we should return to a presumption of innocence for white males, a healthy skepticism about “buyer’s remorse” in “date rape” situations, & an end to the conclusiveness of the presumption that women never lie about rape. And that we all might understand the science of DNA. And that a declaration of innocence cannot be blithely dismissed as just a "who knows objectively what might have happened & while there is evidence to support the charge, there's just not enough for us to say it's enough evidence to overcome 'reasonable doubt' "

Finally, for Feminists who really care about women, poor as well as rich, the mother of one of the three accuseds said something like this on 60 Minutes:This is a poor woman who’s been taken advantage of by men all her life. And no one's taken more advantage of her than Nifong.

Since I’ve read a lot of your good stuff on Prof A’s blogs, I’m sure that you do not blame all Jews, only “wealthy progressive” ones, but the question then arises to those who would like to defend you: why do you single out wealthy progressive Jews when I suspect that you & I both agree that no wealthy progressives, Christian, Jews, Muslims, secularists, atheists, agnostics, whatever are advancing real progress?

As the Rabbi said when discussing how come so many of his flock had become Quakers “Some of my best Jews are Friends”.

they'd either be suing the state (which has the resources to drag the case through as many appeals as it likes) or their own college (which would put them in the "bad guy" corner.)

Why would that put them in the "bad guy" corner? Pretty much everyone who has been following the case -- with the exception of a handful of die-hard lefties who consider white men guilty no matter what the evidence -- is of the opinion that Duke behaved abominably here. They need a good hard suing.

Besides, Duke is a richly endowed private college. It isn't like the players would be suing George Washington Carver Community College and denying thousand of poor minorities a decent education. They'll be taking a bunch of nefarious rich white guys to the cleaners -- and as this case showed us, people love that sort of thing even when the defendants AREN'T guilty.

“Math, (hard) science, and engineering have actually true answers. 2 + 2 = 4 and so on. No discipline can be taught where the dominant professors deny that there is any objective truth. Liberal arts need to be studied only in one's own time, while universities and colleges only pursue ACTUAL knowledge rather than their current pursuit of intellectual onanism.”

Funny, those of us who majored in a Liberal Arts discipline looked down on you technicians as number crunchers or beaker fillers who had not been taught the proper way to construct an English sentence!

But, more important, while your hypothesis seems objectively verifiable today, that’s because the current faculties have hijacked the Liberal Arts by removing anything liberal in it. And despite their asserting the “nothing is certain, not even that", they've reduced liberal education to theology (hey, maybe that’s why you use the biblical term “onanism”) & have actually infused it with mathematical certitude by decreeing that there is an objective truth: AmeriKKKa is now being governed by a ChimpyMcHitlerBushCheney Halliburton Fascist regime elected by gun-toting weirdo moronic fat, flag-waiving, fundamentalists (see the picture on the front page of last Sunday’s NYTimes). And that the Islamofascists will love us if only we dialog with them.

And, as Palladian suggests, even your science leaves room for doubt. Otherwise, there can be no challenge to existing thinking.

Christy.

I acknowledge one scientific area in Physics which deals with absolute certainty: Calamatologists who identify themselves as scientists preach the Global Warming Theory with a certainty that demands that all doubt be cast away in a glow of religious zeal.

I take specific issue with this statement, as phrased, on the grounds that if one actually believes the first adjective--psychotic--is true, then the second (drug[-]using) is ironic, referring to both what she shouldn't have been taking, if she was, and should have been taking, if she wasn't; and the third [whore] is gratuitous.

If you think, by virtue of my taking exception to that particular statement as constructed, that I'm a Nifong defender, you're as wrong as you can be, by the way.

noted. I stand by the accuracy of the words, but admit it's a loaded combination.

- she was mental. as I recall, having been committed at least once, and having been charged with running a police officer down in car in another.- she was apparently using both legal and illegal drugs as well as alcohol that night. One school of thought was that the rape charge was a drug scamming ploy at the hospital.- she was a hooker

The major point of stringing those words together was not to attack the alleged victim, thought I think she deserves to be punished, but rather to demonstrate how reckless the Police and the PC vigilante's, including Duff Wilson were till the bitter end. This woman was flaky, period. Yes, I know hookers can get raped. However when the entire case involves the veracity of a drug using hooker mental case, it behooves everybody to check her story out from the start. Her story changed EVERY time she told it. completely.

There was no case because there was no crime. Nifong till the end could not let that go. same with the group of 88.

"she was apparently using both legal and illegal drugs as well as alcohol that night"

The NC Attorney General's investigators reported that Mangum even showed up high at an interview with them. As for Mangum's real profession, the DNA results leave no doubt. The Sgt's characterization of Mangum is perfectly accurate.

Kirk: you're right, it was the fate of Larry Summers I was suggesting as the proof of exactly how far a faculty will go to enforce race/class/gender dogma.

Fen sad...Ann, I'm curious how your fellow professors feel about this. It looks like the Duke faculty will get away with bearing false witness without apology, and it diminishes the power of any future statements by other faculty

Putting the topic back in Ann's court, the Group of 88 ad claimed that 10-12 Duke Programs and Departments had signed on to the ad. However after the fact, nobody in those departments could remember having done so. My limited view of academic department politics is that they are nearly paralyzed by the need to obtain "consensus" for all actions. Wouldn't your faculty be outraged at someone abrogating their rights in this fashion? Or if it's a progressive cause, democracy doesn't matter?

Since Duke is going to be sued over this statement, which purports to have the official imprimatur of Duke departments, I find their lack of intellectual curiosity amazing.

I was not the least bit surprised as the recommendation for disbarment, once the AG had stepped in. The legal profession may not be the best at policing their own, but in most high profile cases manage to do the right thing. (And for any doctors in the audience, that is IMHO far better than the medical profession does).

But now it gets interesting. How much liability does Nifong, the county, and the university have? Or, to put it the opposite way, how much immunity do they have?

One thing that may work against Nifong is to sue under the Civil Rights Act(s). He was operating under color of law in a racially discriminatory way, and thus may be liable for monetary damages. And, to a lesser degree, he may also face some criminal liability.

I have less faith, but more hope, for litigation against the university. I would suggest that it seriously violated its duties to at least the three LAX students who were charged and then exonerated. It probably also violated duties to the other LAX players, and to their coach (whom Duke appears to have already paid off). If the school is smart, they will just do the same with the LAX players: pay them off without a big fight.

Unfortunately, I don't expect to see the gang of (now) 87 being brought to task here. They most likely all or almost all have tenure. We found out here in CO what it takes to get rid of a tenured professor in the case of Ward Churchill - without proof of scholastic misconduct, it is nearly impossible.

"Spoken like a stupid person who never studied anything, "soft" or "hard" very well. So what happens to the law schools? Does theoretical physics get the chop in your little vocationalization project? Hell, even medicine seems a little unscientific when you think about it."

The use of law and medicine here are straw men, Palladian (and the physics reference is nonsensical). I agree with Hey's comments to the limited extent that until schools do something to rein in the crazies in the liberal arts (Kevin Barrett, anyone?), we deserve to be scorned. Maybe a nice, big settlement against Duke would be a much needed whack upside the head.

"We found out here in CO what it takes to get rid of a tenured professor in the case of Ward Churchill - without proof of scholastic misconduct, it is nearly impossible."

Good grief, to all but PC-motivated deniers, Ward C. has been so proven! But, as we are seeing, who are you & moi against the weight of all the hate-AmeriKKKa intellectualoids who defend him? He’s a victim, for gosh sakes!

On your other thoughtful point, I, admittedly not an expert in disbarment proceedings or a trial lawyer, “feel” that neither Bar Association disciplinary committee members nor judges come down hard on all the Ward C’s of the bar. (I’m not talking politics) or at least do not do so early on.

Aside, I was bemused at how fast the NY Grievance Committee disbarred disgraced ex-President Nixon. It seemed like “piling on”, since he was slouching toward the California retreat & was never gonna practice law again. With the Hon Bill C, I was not so sure that he wouldn’t join a firm or accept an appointment as distinguished prof of Law & I thought it necessary. (Or maybe that’s a reflection of my politics. Ya think?) Here with Nifong, I think that there’s more piling on coming if he’s sued. And that it’s justified.

I was surprised but gratified at both the AG’s conclusion that the lacrossers were “innocent” rather than the safe “not guilty” & the committee’s going all the way & disbarring Nifong as opposed to giving him a slap on the wrist since he’d already lost his job. IMHO, Both decisions were right, but it doesn’t always come out that way.

Some talkingheads & I suspect even some advisors of the Lacrossers are telling them to “get on with the rest of your life” or “move on”. I’d like to see them sue Duke & its assorted miscreants but I would understand if they moved on. I have no idea how the administration’s cretins would justify their overreactions & how the repulsive Gang of 88 & assorted “potbangers” would defend their libels & slanders, but at this point, sans litigation, their attitude is defiance, (“the best defense is a strong offence”) & Dan Rather-like, that “something happened in that bathroom” (something nasty in the woodshed).

BTW, some keep asking why Ms Magnum is not being prosecuted. In the world of those who make up the jury pool, that may well seem like piling on especially since her “use by date” is fast approaching.

You're attacking the wrong guy & defending, albeit to a "limited extent", Mr/Ms Hey, whose point was that he had no doubt that Liberal Arts is crap & that technical stuff is the ticket.

Palladian, acting like a paladin here, can defend himself, but I would agree with him, perhaps in a more diplomatic way, that such a statement does not display a scientific approach & is unthought, or at best quite superficial. (On reflection, I’m not really being diplomatic, am I?)

To paraphrase Chesterton: Liberal Education has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.

I suspect that Nilfong is largely immune to civil suit for his behavior. He was acting in his official capacity as DA. Even doing a crap job at it, he is still protected.

The State of NC has its own sovereign immunities, so it's not on any hook.

Duke U. might be open to suit, but even that's unlikely. The individual 88/87 might be open, but that, too, is probably not going to happen as they are entitled to state their opinions (1st Amend. protection) as well as academic freedom.

My guess, as a non-lawyer, is that a federal Civil Rights case might succeed, but it sure wouldn't be cheap. It would have to recover not only legal fees expended in the rape allegation case, but the new fees accruing from the new suit.

I most sincerely doubt that Nilfong has the wherewithal to pay off whatever costs and/or damages he could be tagged with. Though perhaps personal liability insurance could cover some/all of it.

I suspect he's gotten all the punishment that he's going to get. Total public humiliation and repudiation; loss of his job as DA; disbarment.

Duke will have to suffer its own humiliation and, perhaps, a drop in alumni donations. And maybe, too, potential students will decide to study elsewhere.

And even today one must say that in the face of a declaration of innocence by the attorney general of North Carolina, it appears the defendant still believes the facts to be one way and the world now knows that is not the case.

snip...

I want to say something about who the victims are here. The victims are the three young men to start with, their families, the entire lacrosse team and their coach, Duke University, the justice system in North Carolina and elsewhere

snip...

This has given an opportunity to air some but not all of the evidence that may relate to this matter. After all, our purpose is limited to the disciplinary matter before us and the specific allegations only involve the law license of Mike Nifong. But we’ve had an opportunity over the last several days to hear additional evidence — and while it is really not within the purview of the panel to make such a pronouncement — I want to say again that we acknowledge the actual innocence of the defendants. And there is nothing here that has done anything but support that assertion.

Ann, I'm curious how your fellow professors feel about this... Shouldn't their peers exact some price from this? At least ostracism, ridicule, etc? Maybe I'm being unrealistic and expecting too much but: do you feel that faculty around the country have any obligation to act on the Duke faculty in a way that would discourage something like this from happening again?

Object lesson for our lefty trolls. Note how Ann was asked to respond, including several followups from others requesting same. She chose not to [or didn't see it]. Do you see us hectoring her or demanding she address the question? Nope. Learn from the example.

Lubiano’s thesis permeates the rump Group’s statement: though the case upon which their original ad was built has collapsed, the signatories show no repentance. They categorically “reject” all “public calls to the authors to retract the ad or apologize for it.” The Group, in short, did no wrong—as Karla Holloway said last fall, they’d do it over again, in a “heartbeat.”

"I want to say something about who the victims are here. The victims are the three young men to start with, their families, the entire lacrosse team and their coach, Duke University, the justice system in North Carolina and elsewhere."

I was not there when Lincoln was shot either, but I don't think Grant or Lee did it, even if both had motive and perhaps opportunity. :)

Remember that Nifong indicted Seligman already knowing that his DNA wasn't there and NOT knowing if he was even ever at the party. Later of course an iron clad alibi was presented. None of that mattered.

In the "test with no wrong answers" otherwise known as the lineup that wasn't a lineup (according to the revised DPD story), the alleged victim (who also claimed that the other stripper participated in the rape (in one version)) made a tentative ID, that was the only evidence, and enough to ruin him.

Sorry this is being so confusing! Really, I am not trying to be obtuse, but I would like more info on how I am being incoherent.

Re Lincoln, there were MANY reliable witnesses. So my being there is immaterial.

Re the kid who has proof he was miles away, I accept that, it is after all, proof.

I think that the prosecution was horrible, and I have serious doubts that anything happened. I just do not KNOW it.

Maybe it is from my court work in contested divorce cases with child abuse allegations. People bring me the kids because I am very careful to listen to the child and look for a coherent, believable report that was not coached.

On the stand, I say I do not know a lot. Maybe that is leaking into my thoughts on this matter.

But I am not buying the "incoherent" comment without more to back it up. Evidence please!

Obviously, everyone else realizes that this dead horse smells, yet I feel compelled to beat it a little more.

Part of it is how do we know that we know something. I make a distinction between what I believe and what I know. What I know has a higher burden of proof, much higher than what I believe.

At the same time, I am willing to accept that I know something based on repeated experience. So I know that my wife loves me (repeated experience) but believe that her first husband was a jerk (her telling me.)

I still think that my reluctance to "know" came in part from time in court. At least that is what I believe.

Re Lincoln, there were MANY reliable witnesses. So my being there is immaterial.

What's your basis for claiming that those witnesses were reliable and the people at the party -- NONE of whom confirmed the stripper's accusations -- weren't? What evidence do you have that the theatergoers, who never even had to testify under oath before the grand jury, were trustworthy, and the dozens and dozens of Duke students who *did* testify before the grand jury were not?

Sorry, that was so funny to me it just slipped out! Well, having been at more than a few drunken frat parties, and having been drunk myself at a few of them, I understand that milieu. This is not to blame the boys, whom I BELIEVE to be innocent, but to credit my experience, which is that I KNOW that untoward things happen at parties without everyone knowing.

Really, I think my being out of synch with people like you whom I usually agree with, is my pickiness about what I know and what I believe, not these boys whom I believe to be innocent.

Secondly, I've been at many college parties -- fraternity, athletic, you name it -- and nobody was ever raped at any of them. Photographed while passed out in embarassing positions, yes. Raped, no.

Thirdly, regardless of what you might think about college guys, the notion that *everyone* at the party would have joined together to cover up for an assault that coincidentally left absolutely no physical traces on the "victim" are so absurdly remote that no rational person could credit them.

So what's the deal here? Why are you so firmly denying the obvious reality that the players were framed?

Rev, for some reason, either I am not able to communicate my points well, or you are not able to get them as I think we are talking past each other.

I believe that this was an attempted shake down on the part of the accuser and a race baiting vote grab on the part of the D.A.

We agree.

I do not believe that the woman in question was in any way assaulted at the party.

We agree.

I think that the Duke students were abused, slandered, and mistreated by Duke, the 88, and Nifong.

We agree.

What we disagree on is what we can KNOW. We have different standards of proof or certaintity in our internal cognitive schema. My standard for claiming to know something is more stringent than yours is in this matter. I suspect that I am the outlier and a little peculiar in this difference, and that you are the logical, steady person that your posts suggest you to be. If there is a flake in this, I honestly bet it is me.

What is interesting is how the discussion makes you worry that I blame the fellas in some way. I do not. I believe them to be innocent.

My experience has just not risen to the level that my internal schema will accept that I KNOW that they are innocent, with the exception of the guy with the ATM receipt.

Part of my weirdness on this comes from my weird job. Last night, I listened to a beautiful 4 year old girl state and demonstrate that her mother repeatedly vaginally raped her with a green stick. The detectives in this matter are claiming that the girl has been coached by her paternal grandparents. As her therapist, I am working to see what I can know and what I believe about the competing claims and statements. I may have to back up my beliefs with considerable evidence and support.

Now I saw the girl demonstrate what happened to her. It was so intense and driven on her part that I told her she did not have to show that to me ever again. She continued to do so despite my request, because the demonstration is driven by deep affect on her part. What about the green stick? Was she referring to a vibrator, an actual stick, or is this just a metaphor for her to tell me that it hurt?

I do not know yet. But having seen her act in ways that are not coachable, I know something happened.

Now I have to figure it out, and I need to be damn certain about what I figure, as people could go to jail, or she could be released to a monster, based on my likely testimony at a later date.

So I have to know that I know that I know to fulfill my role in her life correctly.

The Duke case is similar enough to last night that it likely engages the same methodical, hard nosed cognitive process in me. And that is what you read in my posts. Not that I believe that they are guilty, but that I do not have the evidence and experience to know that they are innocent.